The report you linked as a reference contradicts your point. Shadowsocks servers **need** protection against replay attacks. The current bloomfilter-based implementation might not be good enough (limited capacity, no persistency, etc). But removing the protection is not the solution. We need protocol changes to achieve full protection.

[0987cronaker]

    The report you linked as a reference contradicts your point. Shadowsocks servers **need** protection against replay attacks. The current bloomfilter-based implementation might not be good enough (limited capacity, no persistency, etc). But removing the protection is not the solution. We need protocol changes to achieve full protection.

Since you have consistently given downvotes/objections to proposals of any change (shadowsocks/shadowsocks-org#177, shadowsocks/shadowsocks-org#178, shadowsocks/shadowsocks-org#183 (comments)), I'm giving your PR a 👎.

Originally posted by @database64128 in shadowsocks/shadowsocks-rust#556 (comment)

[database64128]

Why did you take my previous comment out of context and re-post it here? This contains outdated opinions/information and should be deleted.